Mormon, Republican science-fiction writer and board member of NOM, Orson Scott Card goes off the rails:
The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.
Two paragraphs and he's showing his complete lack of understanding about our Constitutional democracy which gives the Court the ability to tell us what the law means and to protect the all the people from the tyranny of the majority. Mr. Card is, in fact, a beneficiary of that system as it comes to the practice of his particular brand of religion. He may be blind to it. But he is, nonetheless, a beneficiary of the Constitution.
Eisenhower says it best: Dear Ed: I think that such answer as I can give to your letter of November first will be arranged in reverse order--at least I shall comment first on your final paragraph.
You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.
But beyond the obviousness of the Constitution and how government actually works, pro gay marriage is now polling at 49%, with 46% against and 5% unsure. That's the electoral majority process, Mr. Card. Something by which, when the shoe will be on the other foot, because you're losing this battle, you'll be the first to the Courts to protect your belief on "how it should be" and all this "democratic process" will be dropped faster than the Pet Rock fad hit the skids. Anyway, the unhindged one then trots out the slippery slope fallacy:
The pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.
It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.
We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.
It was actually privacy and self-determination rights that were upheld. The same "rights" also give women the right to purchase birth control when single (they often weren't allowed to) or without the consent of their husband (once again, they weren't allowed to in many states). But, beyond that, he has the modern obsession with abortion that was not shared, even in this religious country, one-hundred years ago. And certainly not by his religion. The bible, except for Exodus, is silent on abortion and has this to say:
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25
Further injury, in this passage,
is to the woman not the foetus. If he kills her, he dies. If he burns her, he is burned. If she looses a tooth, so does he. But for the foetus? A fine. And, it's not a big a fine btw. In other parts of the bible you find that children do have a pecuniary worth, and it is low, and class-dependent.
Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.
You're not "innocently praying." Besides, holy-roller that he is, he should know God doesn't hear those prayers anyway:
Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Matthew 6: 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
They are, in fact, engaged in political speech and disruptive conduct. And, as we know, the "right to free speech" is not an absolute. One that Mr. Card enjoys through copyright, slander, libel, hate-speech, fighting-words and other provisions, of the civil and criminal codes. Should I (hypothetically) take up a slanderous life against Mr. Card and manufacture "evidence" of horrific conduct, such as he's the leader of an on-going homosexual pedophilia ring, to destroy his ability to earn an income and general reputation, Mr. Card has redress. Which is why, besides my being a far better human than he, I don't do such things. But still, there is far more slippery slope to explore...:
Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.
Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory -- and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?
What textbooks? There are only five textbook manufactures in the US market. None of them would touch this with a ten-foot pole because they have to deal with Texas and their State Board of Education which is populated by Christian Zealots. There are BOOKS, like
Heather Has Two Mommies and
Daddy's Roommate, but they're not textbooks.
And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming.
The Judge didn't make homeschooling illegal. That's just some idiotic right-wing crap that got into
World Nut Daily, etc. and has become an "Internet fact" when it is no such thing. What happened was some crazy, child-abusing fundamentalists who were, frankly, severely abusing their children were forced to send their kids to public schools. This was to protect the children from the secrecy of the child-abusing, homeschooling parents who'd been in trouble with DCS for nearly a decade and the Court finally got tired of their abusive crap. No other families were affected by the decision.
Now for some hysterical hypocrisy:
How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.
This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals -- the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.
A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?
Orson Scott Card is a Mormon. They believe in the Tabula Rosa of human development. Their psychologists preach that homosexuals are, in fact, mentally ill because it is "impossible" for people to have inborn personality and orientation characteristics. Even though we know that it's biological at this point though we don't know the complete and exact mechanism behind it...
So, it's okay for the Mormon's, like Card, to assert gays are mentally ill, morally bankrupt and sexually deviant because their religion tells them this is the case. Further, I should point out that Card's definition is a strawman's definition and when he's called homophobic for being homophobic it's because the shoe fits:
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling
So, the hypocrite can bash and attack, but it's not okay to point out that his actions towards gays is, by definition, homophobic? Hypocrite, thy name is Card. Now, onto another strawman:
Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.
It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken.
First, who made this promise? Second, who died and gave him/her the actual authority to make this promise? Seriously, there is not some "National Gay Organization" that has the right to speak and bind all gays. It's not like the AMA... Oh wait, they can't do it either... How about the APA? Nope... AICPA? Nuh uh... Well, if national professional organizations can't do it for there members... I don't see how it can be done for gays, either. And, third, who'd be stupid enough to believe it anyway?
Let's move on because we have a lot more stupidity to cover. Next up is classic misrepresentation of the application of the rule of law:
And you can guess how long it will now take before any group that speaks against "gay marriage" being identical to marriage will be attacked using the same tools that have been used against anti-abortion groups -- RICO laws, for instance.
The RICO laws are applied to anti-abortion groups that are committing crimes,
like bombing clinics. RICO is a statute to punish the conspiracy to commit a crime, like those engaged in by PETA or the KKK. They're not otherwise used to stifle free speech, like quasi-similar organizations along the lines of the Audubon Society or Sons of the Confederacy. Even if you're crankish enough to think they should be... And we continue with Card's semi-incoherent rant:
Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.
No, here is the irony. You are using a logical fallacy known as the appeal to tradition. Appealing to tradition is how we justify continuing the horrors of the past. Even though we don't have any substantive logical or moral grounds to continue those practices. Card, of course, goes on to make the argument "marriage was created by God" without actually saying it as he knows the reader (it's in the
The Mormon Times) will "get it:"
The laws concerning marriage did not create marriage, they merely attempted to solve problems in such areas as inheritance, property, paternity, divorce, adoption and so on.
Mr. Card, like all the Christinistas, seems to forget that marriage is present in virtually all cultures, regardless of religion. There is no special privilege for the judeo-christian belief that God made marriage. Even though he tries to create it. To support this argument Card goes right to the bad analogy, comparing a physical attribute to a human construct:
If the government passed a law declaring that grey was now green, and asphalt was specifically designated as a botanical organism, would that make all our streets into "greenery" and all our parking lots into "parks"?
Mr. Card, marriage is defined by humans. It has been since we invented it and the priests stole it. Whereas Green is merely a label we use for an inherent physical property of something. And, if you think marriage laws are about things like inheritance, property settlements, etc., then why the opposition to other enjoying the full protection (and responsibility) of the law? Let us continue:
If a court declared that from now on, "blind" and "sighted" would be synonyms, would that mean that it would be safe for blind people to drive cars?
No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.
Well, beyond the absurd analogy where a physical property is equated with an intangible concept, we get to Card's real issue. He seems to be implying rather strongly his objects really come about be he thinks gay sex is icky. Well, here is a clue Mr. Card:
47% of Americans engage in anal sex. So maybe you need to give Ted Haggard a call and give that a shot. Maybe it'll loosen the stick in your ass a bit and you can start thinking.
This is a permanent fact of nature.
No,
homosexuality is a permanent fact of nature:
Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
Not marriage. I have yet to see animals get married, unless they have
weird owners...
(In another column I will talk seriously and candidly about the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality, and the reasons why homosexuality persists even though it does not provide a reproductive advantage.)
There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically. This is not subject to legislation, let alone fashionable opinion.
Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality. No parthenogenic test tube procedure can alter what we, by nature, are. No surgery, no hormone injections, can change X to Y or make the distinction nonexistent.
That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females.
That many individuals suffer from sex-role dysfunctions does not change the fact that only heterosexual mating can result in families where a father and a mother collaborate in rearing children that share a genetic contribution from both parents.
Oh boy. I'm looking forward to more crank pseudo-science (which will likely be from the Mormon hacks who really like to pump this crap out) while ignoring real research, no doubt. Also, the part in bold, it's a crock. My ex-wife was a horrible mother and I terminated her parental rights. My current wife is a bazillion times better and adopted the child. I know scores of other cases similar to mine, all of which easily disprove that idiotic assertion. But let's continue:
Married people are doing something that is very, very hard -- to combine the lives of a male and female, with all their physical and personality differences, into a stable relationship that persists across time.
When they are able to create children together, married people then provide the role models for those children to learn how to become a man or a woman, and what to expect of their spouse when they themselves marry.
When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage.
When a heterosexual couple adopts children who are not their genetic offspring, they affirm the pattern of marriage and generously confer its blessings on children who might otherwise have been deprived of its benefits.
Some marriages are better than others; some fail utterly because of the malfeasance of one or both of the partners.
That only makes it all the more vital that the whole society combine to help husbands and wives succeed at marriage.
Everything there, except for straight-up reproduction, can also be said in a positive manner for gay marriages. We know, for example, that gay foster and adoptive parents are at least as good as heterosexual ones. We know that children raised by committed-relationship gay parents have equal (or better) marriage results than those raised in heterosexual marriages of the same duration. I find this part of his rant to be just weird. Like he had column inches to fill, or voices to placate:
We need the same public protection of marriage that we have of property. If we did not all agree that people continue to own things that are not in their immediate possession, then you could not reasonably expect to come home and find your house unoccupied.
We agree, by law, to make it a crime to take what belongs to others -- even when you need it more than they do. Every aspect of our lives is affected by this, and not for a moment could a society exist that did not protect the right of property.
If property rights were utterly abolished, and you could own nothing, you would leave that society as quickly as possible -- or create a new society that agreed to respect each other's property rights and protected them from outsiders who would attempt to take away your property.
Marriage is, if anything, more vital, more central, than property.
I feel like he's dancing around the issue of "women are property." Which, knowing he is a Mormon and that is the pervasive culture in Mormonism...
Oh, and it looks like my feeling was right. Here we have it:
Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.
Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.
These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions -- even, in many cases, death.
Well, in many primitive societies, death was the punishment for disobeying your parents. So I wouldn't put much stock in what bronze-age fools thought was a good idea... You need something better than an appeal to barbarism to carry the day.
I will say I find the second precept to be funny. Many Mormons, especially the splinter sects, still practice forms of polygamy. They just do it quietly instead of sanctioned by the Church. Additionally, since Mr. Card has argued for the traditional marriage of one-man, one-woman, I find it hard to reconcile his "traditional" view considering the traditional view of his church, and the biblical days from which he takes his traditional view, included polygamy as a normal marriage practice. It's like he doesn't recognize HIS version of traditional marriage is much newer than his bible and not supported by his religious texts in the manner he believes. Yet he makes, essentially, (besides the very bad "natural" argument) a religious argument from the fallacy of tradition and then seemingly starts to argue against himself by pointing out that heterosexual marriage, and heterosexual life suffers from a lot of ills without any help from gays and gay marriage:
Seen in this context, we are fools if we think "gay marriage" is the first or even the worst threat to marriage.
We heterosexuals have put marriage in such a state that it's a wonder homosexuals would even aspire to call their unions by that name.
Divorce is "no-fault," easily obtained on any pretext.
A vast number of unmarried men and women have such contempt for marriage that they share bed and home without asking for any formal recognition by society.
In an era when birth control and abortion make childbearing completely optional, the number of out-of-wedlock births shows the contempt that many women have for marriage.
Yet most of these single mothers still demand that the man they chose not to marry before having sex with him provide financial support for them and their children -- while denying the man any of the rights and protections of marriage.
Men routinely discard wives and children to follow the nearly universal male biological desire for diversity in mating. Adultery is now openly expected of men, even if faithful wives deplore it.
With "gay marriage," the last shreds of meaning will be stripped away from marriage, with homosexuals finishing what faithless, selfish heterosexuals have begun.
Marriage, to be worth preserving, needs to mean not just something, but everything.
Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.
If government is going to meddle in this, it had better be to support marriage in general while providing protection for those caught in truly destructive marriages.
And how would gay marriage attack/solve any of this? Where is the causality? Do you have any stats? The divorce rate in Massachsetts didn't spike beause of gay marriage. People in Iowa aren't getting divorced over gay marriage. By-and-large, except for crybaby victems of offense, it's not affecting anyone all besides those who got married.
There is no logical reason to believe that gay marriage will, somehow, wreck straight-marriage and cause the collapse of Western Society. Really, except for your intentioal wallowing in being offended, gay marriage will do NOTHING to you, or anyone else, who isn't somehow directly part of the specific gay marriage in question.
Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
Society gains no benefit whatsoever (except for a momentary warm feeling about how "fair" and "compassionate" we are) from renaming homosexual liaisons and friendships as marriage.
In other words, gays can't love. It's just horny time. Blech, you make me sick, Mr. Card.
Married people attempting to raise children with the hope that they, in turn, will be reproductively successful, have every reason to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.
It's about grandchildren. That's what all life is about. It's not enough just to spawn -- your offspring must grow up in circumstances that will maximize their reproductive opportunities.
Oh, so my marriage is pointless because it's "all about the grandchildren" and I don't have any? That means any marriage that doesn't end in children is pointless? You think that's what marriage is about? Kids and grandkids? How fucking 18th century of you, Mr. Card.
Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?
They're not. They say nothing about it at all. Screaming idiots like you make sure of that.
Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?
Oh, the irony, it burns. You want government to discriminate, thus interfering in their family lives, yet you pretend it's the government interfering in yours if they take away their current, actual interference.
If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?
It doesn't happen, you twat! There are no re-education camps!
What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
There is no biological imperitive to marriage. There is a biological reality of homosexuality. Marriage is a social construct and we, as humans, have the right to change it to fit our socially evolved sense of right and justice.
No matter how much it offends those who do not wish to move forward.
Note: I know the article is from last year. But with the recent Iowa decision, these talking points (including by Card) have been recycling and I feel it needs to be re-addressed.
